Case law

People v. McCullough

126 A.D.3d 1452 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 2015

In People v LeGrand ( 8 NY3d 449 [2007]), the Court of Appeals established a two-stage inquiry for considering a motion to admit expert testimony on eyewitness identification (see Santiago, 17 NY3d at 669 ). … Those factors are clearly relevant to the eyewitness’s identification of defendant (see Abney, 13 NY3d at 268 ).

Long v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

81 A.D.3d 1391 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 18, 2011

In support of her motion to set aside the verdict finding that defendants were not negligent, plaintiff contended that the evidence at trial clearly established that Cody was speeding, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic … School Dist., 214 AD2d 947, 948 [1995]), establishes that Cody violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

John E. v. Doe

164 A.D.2d 375 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 24, 1990

(supra) leads us to conclude that the petitioner failed to establish that his consent to this adoption is required. … Moreover, as the best interests of Daniel would clearly be served by permitting him to remain with the only parents he has known since his birth three years ago, we agree with the Family Court’s determination that this adoption

Suffolk County v. New York State Civil Service Commission

31 A.D.2d 549 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 25, 1968

Falk (10 A D 2d 789, affd. 9 NY 2d 1004 ), relied upon by the court below and the majority of this court, the Director of Fire Safety herein clearly has the power to “appoint qualified persons to the positions of employment … established from time to time by the bqard of supervisors ” and such employees are to be “ under * * * [his] supervision and control” (Suffolk County Charter, § 1127; L. 1958, ch. 278, as amd. by Local Laws, 1963, No. 5

Hilton v. Ernst

38 A.D. 94 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1899

The courts will not hesitate to enforce the restitution provided for by the. statute, whenever the facts clearly fall within its terms. … In this case the insolvency of the Kilmer Manufacturing Company as early as October 10, 1895, and at the time of all the assignments made iri that month, is established by the evidence.

Marsell v. Maires

203 A.D. 646 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 24, 1922

In a broad sense, the public is interested in securing the election of properly qualified trustees so that the due and proper administration of each estate shall be had solely for the benefit of those interested, and free … So in the case at bar, we may grant the fitness and good faith of the parties, but we cannot permit to be done that which, if established as legal, may and probably would lead to the utter subversion of the purpose and intent

Matter of Dhir v. Winslow

2024 NY Slip Op 00531 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 2024

that the respondent has committed a qualifying family offense' " ( id. ). … With respect to the qualifying family offense alleged in the second petition, "[a] person commits harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.26 (3) when [that person], 'with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another

People v. Rodriguez

235 A.D.2d 504 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 21, 1997

Given the clear proviso of CPL 190.30 (2), in order to qualify for this statutory hearsay exception within the context of Grand Jury proceedings, it must be evident that (1) the person certifying the report was the same person … The report before us clearly indicates that Police Officer Ramirez both tested the operability of the subject firearm and signed the certification located at the bottom of the report.

Ragone v. State

211 A.D. 573 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 7, 1925

the Court of Claims; but no judgment shall be awarded by such court for any such damages in any case unless the facts proved therein make out a case which would create a legal liability against the State, were the same established … The State is not hable for the neglect of its officers or employees unless made so by express provision of statute, and a waiver of immunity from liability must be clearly expressed (Smith v. State, 227 N. Y. 405 .)

In re Proving the Last Will of Lawler

215 A.D. 506 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 5, 1926

Clearly such was not the intent of the parties to this agreement. … The four executors refused to qualify, and Mrs.

Macri v. Kelly

92 A.D.3d 53 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2011

Section 2 (36) (c) (v) specifically defines cancer as a “qualifying physical condition.” … In cases where there has been a tie vote, “the reviewing court may only disturb the final award by finding causation established as a matter of law, [and] as long as there was any credible evidence of lack of causation before

People v. Henderson

197 A.D.3d 663 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 18, 2021

The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v Watson , 163 AD3d 855 ; People v Casey , 149 … Moreover, the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants

Carrao v. Heitler

117 A.D.2d 308 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 20, 1986

Clearly it is the patient, and not the doctor, who is the ultimate consumer of the vaccine. … Documentary evidence indicates that in 1970, while the Roxane vaccine was to be given with a coadministration of Immune Serum Globulin or of Measles Immune Globulin (gamma globulin), the Dow vaccine was to be given without

People v. Hector

295 A.D.2d 212 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 18, 2002

A court’s erroneous submission of a lesser crime that arises out of the same transaction, but which does not qualify as a lesser included offense, is not a jurisdictional defect and is waived if timely objection is not made … Moreover, when, during the course of jury deliberations, the error in submitting the assault charge became known to the court and parties, defendant, in what was clearly a tactical move, insisted that the jury still be permitted

Moseley v. White

74 A.D.3d 1424 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2010

Proof was adduced that, while living in Tennessee in the year prior to coming to live with the grandparents, the children failed to receive basic medical care such as immunizations and dental care. … The mother’s disregard for the well-being of her children was also established by her criminal history during this period.

Solartech Renewables, LLC v. Vitti

156 A.D.3d 995 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 7, 2017

The memorandum expressing the contract did not have to be contained in one document, but could consist of separate signed and unsigned writings that, read together, clearly refer to the same transaction and contain all of … Although emails are electronic records, not every attachment to an email qualifies as an electronic record under ESRA.

Syracuse Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Education

42 A.D.2d 73 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 29, 1973

This appeal presents the question of the authority of the board of education of a school district, in its collective bargaining negotiations with a teachers’ representative bargaining agent, to agree to the establishment … Clearly the provision is a general one for the benefit of all of the plaintiff’s teachers; and it is a term and condition of their employment.

People v. Fezza

1 A.D.2d 808 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 26, 2003

These letters clearly established the first two requirements for invoking Executive Law § 70-a (7) regarding the individuals named therein and no argument has been made that the third requirement, multijurisdictional criminal … others recant under suspicious circumstances]; Alvarado v Superior Court, 23 Cal 4th 1121, 1150 n 15, 5 P3d 203 , 222 n 15 [2000], cert denied 532 US 990 [2001] [“The use of violence and intimidation by criminal gangs to immunize

Health Insurance Ass'n of America v. Corcoran

154 A.D.2d 61 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 1990

HIV testing is used to determine an individual’s risk of developing acquired immune deficiency syndrome (hereinafter AIDS), a disease by now well understood to diminish the human body’s natural immunity to opportunistic infection … Clearly, it does not reject as irrelevant the use of HIV test results for actuarial purposes, i.e., as a means of identifying a class substantially more prone to AIDS than the general population.

Delijani v. Delijani

73 A.D.3d 972 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2010

“To sustain a finding of civil contempt based upon a violation of a court order, it is necessary to establish that a lawful court order clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect and the person alleged to have … Nor can the promise made by defense counsel during colloquy in open court on that date, regarding restoration of the electric power, qualify as the “ ‘lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate,’